Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Ed Miliband (LSE) and Cameron (Eton) BBC debate was not really serious, since Eton guy refused to face his LSE opponent together.
There is not only insularity - in the debate - but a bit more of real political decline and fall of the old Empire. What a pity!

I feel that the UK will indeed make a disastrous mistake by leaving the EU, and if anything, it should be increasing its links with Europe by joining the Eurozone -- and more.

However, if it doesn't, then the UK will surely wane over the coming decades.

Unless the next UK leader takes the lead in uniting the Nordic countries, Ireland, and Canada (our Head of State here in Canada is the Queen, the same Queen as in the UK) as all of those nations could complement each other to a large degree. It would be a very natural association, as all of the links already exist. Such a union would merely formalize what links already exist.

Call it the North Atlantic Union or something and keep it in the UN, NATO, and other organizations, of course -- and simply exist with a view to improve the lives of citizens within those member nations.

Of course, of primary importance is the need to stay on excellent terms with the United States and the EU.

It is a tantalizing idea. However, I believe that the UK's best bet is to stay in the EU and join the Eurozone, increasing integration with it every year.

The second best choice, is the one I've outlined above.

And by far the worst choice, is 'going it alone' and eventually getting swallowed up by the EU (but this time, on 'their terms') in 2 0r 3 decades.

I certainly agree that this decision must be made in the coming months.

By asserting Britain being "by itself", Chris Patten points out that "there has been little talk about Britain’s international role and responsibilities" in this general election, giving outsiders the impression that perhaps "the country no longer really matters much – if only because it does not want to matter". But there's a growing sense of introversion in Britain, especially with a sceptical public, that questions Britain's role abroad.
Yet much has changed in Europe and around the globe since Britain's last election in 2010. The Arab Spring had ushered in a seismic shift in the Middle East political landscape. Although Britain is no longer "punching above its weight in global affairs", David Cameron had wanted to play a role on the world stage and would still do, if re-elected.
In March 2011 after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 in favour of a no-fly zone in Libya, British Airforce took part in flying sortie to destroy Muammar Gaddafi's combat capabilities and topple his regime. When the US contemplated military action against Bashar al-Assad in September 2013 after the use of chemical weapons on civilians in Syria, British MPs voted against any intervention. In 2014 after ISIS captured Mosul and slaughtered ethnic minorities in Iraq, they backed a motion for a non-combat role, by sending a "training team", along with drones and Tornado squadron. Although Britain had supported sanctions against Russia after the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, there were misgivings about a negative impact on London's role as Europe's financial centre.
Britain has also signalled commitment to Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's pledge to reinforce the Alliance, the biggest since the Cold War. The country has stuck to Nato guidelines to spend 2% or more of GDP on defence. Yet its army is going through a restructuring process, aiming to reduce regular troop numbers. This has become a sensitive issue ahead of election, because Cameron had refused to commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence, despite repeated calls from within his cabinet and party. Even UKIP backs this spending target!
There are experts, who urge Britain to focus on diplomacy and the strengthening of its international standing, like within the EU, the UN Security Council, the G20 etc. Nobody knows the outcome of the election, but everybody expects another coalition government to be formed, which "will have to deal with reality".

Rome will always sacrifice its Constantinoples - is a lesson of history, that obviously repeats itself. In spite of the events of 15 August 1971, Clinton's judgment in unleashing the 78 days from 24 March to 10 June in 1999, perhaps has been detrimental. The American fatal attraction to play Rome's latest Constantinople, appears to my mind as its greatest undoing as well. Just like Britain - after achieving greatness escaping European embrace in 415 years ago - got trapped by the same fatal attraction, that became its greatest undoing as well. But then, history can be made, never changed.

I think the watershed moment for Britain occurred at exactly 10:00PM on March 18, 2003 . And that what we are seeing in both Britain and the United States is still the reaction to the most monumental political blunder (or act of hubris and stupidity, depending on one's point of view) since Athens initiated the Pelopponesian War.

The question is whether either of our two countries can regain its lost footing. Athens never did. Things, by and large, are not looking promising.

There may be some hope though, if British and U.S. school children going forward would all be required to study the Parliament's debate on that inauspicious day. They may still have the capacity to learn its lessons and chart a new, reinvigorated course.

The question worth trying to work through, in my view, is _WHY_ the U.K. -- and many of us here in the U.S. and the West in general (Germany, France...) -- don't "want to matter" anymore.

In large part, I think it's because we've lost faith in what were once our own fundamental principles and values. The spirit of grudging cooperation, for example, that saw us all through the 1940s has given way to a Hobbesian "every man for himself" attitude that is manifest most clearly in the West's general turn to the Right (via UKIP, TEA party, Front National, Novorussiya and so on). "Liberal Democracy" is open to suspicion and active questioning. "Human Rights" has become a cliche through over subscription by political factions with an ax to grind. Human dignity has been "dollarized." Money is in the saddle and rides mankind -- or at least the mankind of the West.

If this trend continues -- and there's not much cause to believe it won't -- we will devolve into a war of All against All in a zero-sum game where individual life is exactly as Hobbes describe it: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Not only are you correct, but I also believe that the Western leadership has been shaken by the unprecedented rise of China, India, and Indonesia.

Even with Western nations passively/actively working against China since the Opium War, China has lifted 600 million people(!) out of abject poverty, has become an industrialized nation, moved from a frontier economy to a rapidly developing economy -- and soon, developed nation.

Such has never been accomplished in human history.

India, mostly democratic, and learning on the West's and China's examples will do even more, faster, though they are well behind China at this point.

(Separate point; I actually expect India to veer towards Statism in the coming decades, particularly if its relationship with the West deteriorates)

Our Western accomplishments -- although amazing enough over the past century -- are being surpassed in size and scope as Asia has taken careful notes regarding our steps and missteps over the past 100 years and applies that knowledge/experience to its own.

Without two World Wars to speed some Western sectors along and drag other sectors down (and the resultant baby boom, which did not make up for all the births/growth that otherwise would have occurred) we may have done far better than we have.

The fact that we are all coming to realize is that Statism can work well -- although I personally feel that it is prone to top-heavy government (coup risk) and corruption (which is everywhere in the world, although there are more checks and balances in Western nations as compared to Statist nations).

If China continues on its present course it will become the superpower of all superpowers (by 2050) eclipsing all previous superpowers (U.S.A., USSR, Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt, etc).

India won't be too far behind. Neither is Indonesia, which controls some of the most strategic marine trade routes in the world.

It's in our best interests, to *now* lend an assist to rapidly rising nations in regards to their fight against top level corruption.

The last thing we want in 2050 or any year prior, is the Chinese mafia controlling that economy/military, to use China as an example.

In my view, the West should offer unlimited support. This concern trumps terrorism by orders of magnitude. Waiting to help in 2050 or even 2030, will be too late. The time to have the largest and most effective impact is now.

Berating Britain for not punching above its weight in military responsibilities for European Security - when American reluctance to deploy its boots on the ground is blatant, as they want European responsibility in its backyard - only seems to suggest that the Author wishes to see British boots on the ground. Given Franco-German nexus in Brussels that keeps Brtain on the fringes of European Policymaking, the reasons for British reticence is perfectly evident. Economically Britain is now home to nearly 5 million migrants from the Eurozone - heavy lifting for a little island on this scale alone deserves to be rewarded. Brussels failure to shoulder responsibility as defacto Capital of Europe both in Economics and Security matters is where the reprimand is called for. Should Britain extend its heavy lifting in Economics for Europe to Security for Europe, perhaps Brussels itself be relocated to London - so London can benefit from becoming defacto Capital of Europe. Leadership needs to be rewarded commensurate with responsibility. Instead of constantly confronted with the potential loss of Scotland or Quebec or both. Britain by itself - without European heavy lifting responsibility - created The Anglosphere and Greatness that any Nation by itself can take pride in, instead of being apologetic.

Lord Patten criticises the present government at Westminster for encouraging the decline of Britain as a political force in the world. In truth this started around 1971 when the US was allowed to remove discipline from global economics in the Nixon shock.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.